dfnj
Well-Known Member
Yes, absolutely. People can be programmed to associate emotions with anything. This is why and how TV advertising works:
People can association any emotion, like "good" or "bad", with any type of belief.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can You Choose to Believe?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Yes, absolutely. People can be programmed to associate emotions with anything. This is why and how TV advertising works:
People can association any emotion, like "good" or "bad", with any type of belief.
Given the forum we're in, I would say that many religious people would say that "god" can tell if you're phoning in your "beliefs". From this perspective, this is another "thought crimes" message from some religious people, and of course thought crimes cannot be given any chance of gaining traction in society.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
I would say in a lot cases, they really go hand in hand. Accepting one thing denies another and vice versa. We often reject something literally because we believe something counter to it already.
By way of example, I've been explaining in another thread that I don't believe in messengers chosen by God. This is because I believe they are after something from me (a con in other words). It doesn't matter much to this thread whether I'm correct about that or not, but it illustrates my point. Not believing something almost always means believing something else.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I don't think we can choose to believe, and as a knee jerk reaction may believe devoutly in something we experience, but we can choose to trust.
I believe in Jesus Christ but I've also trusted Him for eternal life, IMHO.
Whether or not the tree is real or not,
or you're drunk and think it is,
or it's a bush over which one stumbles,
get a flashlight and not get drunk in the dark.
Interesting to me that the `belief` isn't dependent on religion.
But some here think it does !
But to the `choices`, one always has choices, doesn't one.
But to Thief's choices, what ???
But twice: why does anyone really care,
just make your choice and believe in what you choose.
It won't matter eventually.
or you're drunk and think it is,
or it's a bush over which one stumbles,
get a flashlight and not get drunk in the dark.
Interesting to me that the `belief` isn't dependent on religion.
But some here think it does !
But to the `choices`, one always has choices, doesn't one.
But to Thief's choices, what ???
But twice: why does anyone really care,
just make your choice and believe in what you choose.
It won't matter eventually.
Audie
Veteran Member
Once upon a time, I believed that too. But the basis for me saying this is not on religious or spiritual grounds, but practical psychological grounds. I'll explain....
In reality, if we assume say a choice of believing "I am a worthless human being," or "I am a unique and beautiful human being," both in their own right are "pretending", as you put it. With both choices of belief, you will find plenty of supporting evidences for either position. And how that happens is quite fascinating.
In "pretending", assuming a position and then holding it as truth, we actually create its reality for us. It becomes a self-amplifying feedback system. "I believe I am ugly and undesirable socially". Start with that belief, and yes, you will look in the mirror and see ugliness. You will walk out in public with your head hung low. Others will then avoid you because you exude negativity from your person. You become unpleasant to be around.
You have now all the evidence you need to reinforce the truth of that belief you chose out of other options. You then experience that worthlessness you believe, thus validating its truth in your own eyes, and to be told, "No, you are beautiful", is in fact a pure fiction in your eyes, because "reality" for you says everything but that! You know you are undesirable, because look, nobody wants to be around you!
One of the basic concepts in the Cognitive Behavioral Sciences is how our choice of beliefs, what we tell ourselves is true, creates the reality of that belief for ourselves in either negative, or positive feedback loops. The set of eyes we use to see evidences are colorized by our chosen perspective, or choosing what to believe about a given situation, or at a deeper level, the truth of ourselves. Say what one will about the effectiveness of CBT treatment therapies, there are core truths to what it says.
In reality, all "reality" is "pretend". We collectively choose a perception of reality that works for us in one way or another. Reality, such as it is for us, is nothing other than perception of truth. A metaphor for truth. We take basic "openness", create a metaphor to describe aspects of it, an "as if" statement, and then invest our ideas and beliefs, our meaning-making aspects of our mind into that image, that model, that "as if" statement as what it is. It then becomes that, a lived, and experienced reflection of that projection of our individual and collective truths upon that openness.
Reality is a reflection of our beliefs. And the result is we literally inhabit different realities, even though we share the same physical spaces together. What becomes truth to us, begins with a choice in belief, either explicitly chosen, or simply adopted slipping in through programming of beliefs through culture and society. Not all choices in belief, are overt choices. A great deal of depression can in fact be effectively treated by choosing to believe positive ideas instead.
There is equally as much evidence to support those, as there was the depressing views. One can be looking straight at evidence which contradicts that view, and literally be unable to perceive it because beliefs create a structure that disallows other perceptions of reality. It is in a way kind of a cosmic joke, that all our realities begin and end with "pretending".
You do if you're motivated to.
I am aware of the power of positive thinking.
I think that is all you were talking about, that and
the subset about self-fulfilling prophecy.
If A has a small amount of poor evidence, and B
is abundantly supported, I dont choose B.
The "motivation" you speak of is self indulgence,
a deliberate choice to do self deception.
Believe something I know is false?
You will have to speak for yourself on those things,
I was trained from the word go not to do that.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Ah that makes some sense. Choose to trust. Yes.
But it is tentative, provisional, it will grow with
time and testing, or be abandoned.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
IMO, absolutely not.
I have just recently started believing in what you might call God.
If that was a matter of choice, anyone could simply choose to believe anything, and it obviously not how this works.
Someone who believes something, is genuinely thinks it is the truth. if not, it is called "Faking it".
There is however a possibility to persuade yourself to believing in something.
If you "Fake it" enough time, you just might end really believing it.
This is a very common and known thing these days, really.
Faith is the only way for humans to convey a message for the reach of the majority. You can't invite 7 billion humans on earth to gather evidence of what are in your back yard. At some point the majority out of the 7 billion will have to have faith on what is said about what being in your back yard.
This is the way how it usually works.
CNN (a credible middle man) sends reporters to your house to examine what are in your backyard. They are thus eyewitnesses.
Information is broadcast in news channel (preaching of the gospel for it to reach the majority of humans) with CNN as a popular media, in order for the piece of information to reach the mass majority.
Those (mass majority) watching the news channel will choose to believe. It's not practical for the mass majority of humans to even examine this piece of fact by going directly to your backyard.
If in the case that the existence in your backyard is a temporary existence, say, a corpse of a bird. A month later, humans may not have any alternative to verify but to believe what is broadcast by CNN. If it's one year later, humans may have run out of any option but to believe (or not) what is said by the credible and popular CNN. This may have remained the only way for humans (the mass majority of them) to reach this piece of fact. If it is 100 years later, the generation then will have to rely on CNN to get to this piece of fact, there's no other way round.
Not that itself. That itself is one application of the principle, sometimes being interpreted a little nutty, like imagining there is a million dollars in your bank account, and believing to make it happen sort of magical thinking. The magical thinkers are simply a gross oversimplification of something that is true at a much deeper level. And that holds true for most of the things we believe in. From a higher perspective, the magical thinking is "wrong", but in reality, there is a "partial" truth to what is said, held in a childlike interpretation and imagination of reality.
Pretty much everything we believe influences the outcome. But as I said above, how that happens is vastly more complex than the oversimplified "magical thinking" version of it. I'm a believer in non-linear causality, rather than a direct, linear cause and effect relationship. Beliefs, or "perceptions of truth" are a very definitive element in that relationship. Magical thinking reduces it to one thing, and typically it is a pre-rational thing.
You see, I don't believe this. I hear people claim they "follow the evidence", but when closely examined, they actually followed their feelings. I remember asking the atheist speaker Hector Avalos at one of his presentations to our local Atheist group a few years back as I was a member listening to his discussion, what led him away from the thinking he used to have from a religious perspective. (I myself shared his views he was presenting at the time). His answer was pretty typical of what I hear others say, such as you seem to be saying here as well. He said he "followed the evidence" and it changed his mind.
Now while that may in fact appear to be true, it is in fact only an appearance of truth. If you examine what happens in most all cases, the evidence where there all along, they had heard it all before, they looked at it before, but at that time, they were unable to see it. What changed was not the evidence, but the mind of the person looking at it. And what changes, is a matter of something vastly deeper than thoughts, ideas, and concepts, or "evidences" such as they are.
The "true believer" has his evidences as well, and they are sufficiently strong enough to them to support the truth they believe at the time. Later, the same things may not support how they feel about things. That most certainly describes my own personal experiences. It is also true for others as well. We make decisions at an deeper level than our cognitions and logic processes. Those are all secondary to what is primary before it: The beliefs worked, up until they no longer did for us. Then we were now motivated to re-evaluate our support in order to change the belief itself. We choose to believe something first, then we amass the supporting evidences. We did it as "believers". We do it as "non-believers".
We are humans, not computers.
We do not see it as self-indulgence or self-deception. We see it as truth, because we need to see as truth. We need some functional framework for reality that helps us to translate our lived experience into something that provides both stability and meaning. It's honestly that simple. We believe what suits us, no matter what system that may be. All the rest, is an illusion of the mind.
I am speaking for what human beings do. We all do this.
That passage was talking about the process of correcting that which is initially comprehended as true. It was not saying that this negates the initial comprehension as true.
Hence no need for the
No, but it does mention the things that tend to make us believe or not believe. That is, are they sensible, do they fit in with an existing world view, and do we have the capacity to check any facts, information or assertions placed before us. The fact that so many assertions are made - having no essential proof - I am sure is why so many dismiss religions, plus they just don't fit in with the rest of the knowledge we tend to believe with more conviction.
not if you're unconscious of what is going on. choice implies the difference between two, or more, possibilities.
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/taming-the-brain-0228125/
Last edited:
I never posted “assume” so your post wasn’t clear.
Audie
Veteran Member
Whether you SEE it as self deception, makes only the
difference that it is harder to avoid if you dont see it.
As for what I choose and what you believe about me-
I am only human, of course.
But here is the huge difference between rational,
or scientific thinking and religious, indulgent,
magical thinking.
A highest value in science is, objectivity. Science
is a culture of doubt. I try to be objective.
Nobody can be entirely objective, but, the effort is
to TRY,the goal is clear.
Religion is, yes, a culture of faith.
Faith above all, keep the faith, faith despite
everything and anything, make hard your face.
Look at Job, the lesson in the importance of faith over
evidence.
I dont doubt that the religious think that in
their quest for truth, they are on the
right path. Of course they wont see
self deception, self indulgence.
They dont see that the easiest person
to fool is,themselves.
Look at your next line where you say how to
go about fooling yourself.
we choose to believe something first, then we amass the supporting evidences
Yes! That is exactly it, that is what I have been saying!
And it is the exact opposite of an objective, "scientific"
if you like approach. It is putting confirmation bias
in the drivers set! It is crazy! How can you possibly
value that, want to do it?
I at least try to be objective and rational.
The believers do the opposite.
The are like farmers, who farm, drivers who drive.
As believers, they believe.
I am kind of surprised that this difference is not
utterly obvious to everyone.
Audie
Veteran Member
I said that the correct word would be "assume".
I see what you’re saying, now.
Hmm. Maybe both could be used but I think sometimes it feels like a choice.
Personally, I don't think I ever had a choice to believe in God's existence. I always believed, and I always felt that He existed. It's like a feeling, instinct or whatever you want to call it. I wasn't religious most of my life and it took me years to be even remotely interested in organized religion but I never doubted God's existence. It's not something I can explain, it just is.
What I am trying to say, is that sometimes we actually think something is a lie, when it can equally be seen as a truth from a different perspective. Bringing this back to personal examples, and the way this works for all of us at one level or another, for instance someone can truly believe they are unlovable. They have all the evidence they need to support that view. They have no friends. No one calls them. People avoid them when they walk into a room. They are never invited anywhere, and so on. Furthermore, and to a greater degree, they feel it. They have strong negative emotional responses to what they believe to be true, which only validates the perception. That is evidence to them. They are convinced, not just by the evidences they can see, but by feeling worthless. They inhabit that truth.
Now, someone in that state, an optimist like you, or perhaps me, would point out to them all the wonderful gifts they have. They're very intelligent. They have a great deal of knowledge in this expertise or that. They are talented musically, and so forth. BUT, to them, when you try to persuade them to see the light and goodness in their lives, they CAN'T. They literally cannot see it, because that is not reality to them at all. To them, what you are telling them to do amounts to self-deception, telling themselves a lie they know is not true. But is it true? Or is it simply a matter of what we tell ourselves is truth to begin with, and then, say we choose to tell ourselves we are lovable, and then believe it after that choice, all manner of evidence likewise will present itself to confirm and validate that choice.
This is what is all really boils down to. We choose the perception that we want to believe, for whatever underlying motive. Then, once we believe it, we see all the evidence that supports that choice that we need to. It doesn't begin with evidence, it begins with choice. It begins with a choice in the value of something to us.
While I admire and embrace science and all it offers, it is a perception of life and reality that is not the full picture, by any stretch of the imagination. I get this image in my mind of someone who goes to gym everyday and builds their body in a highly organized and systematic program. On a scale of 1 to 10 of physical fitness, they are a 9.5. But they are socially inept, uneducated with no more than a 3rd grade level education, they have bad hygiene, etc. Then you have others who look at them and say, "I need to be fit like him! Then I'll find out who I am!"
Admiring science is like admiring focusing on maximizing the potential of our bodies. But without equal focus on the rest of life, which the gym does not give you access to, other than pictures on the wall, you're not a fully awakened or alive human being.
This "objectivity" claim, is like artificially imagining that if we can just get that buff body, we will have arrived as a whole person. In reality, all "objectivity" is defined and held by our subjectivity. To pursue "objective truth" will not teach you about subjective reality, which is where you and I and everyone else who has ever been alive have lived our lives. We live on the inside of this sack of skin, and peer out at the stars and mountains and wonder about ourselves. But if we don't look inside the mind itself, not its "brain-bits" but how we exist as you or me to ourselves in this world, all we will ever see is a projected image of ourselves in the various mirrors we find in other people. This is not finding truth. This is not discovering reality.
Science is a great tool. It's not the Answer to life.
As you know from our other conversation, I do not recognize that as actual faith. I see is a lack of it.
The funny thing is, that applies universally to all of us!
People can usually see through our **** long before we can. We typically blind to ourselves, unless we've had some great awakening or another at some point in our lives.Because it is what every human being alive does. Why do you think they invented the scientific method?
I value understanding that. I value understanding it because it teaches us to not be so safe and secure in our assumptions about reality. Even our sciences, despite the systems and methods used to create unbiased views, there is still bias inherent right in the very choice of what they are choosing to research. They will not look at things that are too "messy" or "fuzzy", because you don't get great, easily quantifiable material that garners further funding. Do you imagine science is some ivory tower of those set apart from the world for the sake of pure research for the Truth? We could only wish that were true!That said however, I will again say I greatly am impressed and admire what comes from science. I just don't make a leap of faith that this is where we will find the truth about reality as whole. It can't be, especially when you exclude understanding the nature of the one living it and asking the question itself.
Last edited:
If 'believe' here means something like 'accept as irrefutably true in the absence of supporting evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry, or in the face of such evidence to the contrary' then no, I can't choose to do that.
A more pressing problem is my inability to believe that being overweight according to my BMI is good for me. Others, I gather, have overcome this difficulty ─ is my technique faulty?